Catholic Sensibility

A new kind of justification for war? I think not Terrorism has supposedly given us cause to throw out all the rules on Just War. Kill, some say, before others kill us. The old rules are no longer working. Pacifism would have a few things to say about this. First, indulging in violence, even for a just cause, is mortally dangerous for the defender. Just War doesn't just give Catholic soldiers a free pass on going to confession. Killing damages the killer, be it premeditated, accidental, or done from a distance as in modern warfare. There is a reason that police officers and soldiers have higher rates of domestic abuse, divorce, and other psychological problems than most other professions. A humane person who must kill ten or twenty persons in the course of duty is still scarred by the killing. The sooner chaplains, counsellors, and others in the healing and spiritual realm realize this, the more these people can be helped. A worldwide witchhunt for terrorists, even if we can make it effective, will not be run without a price, even if it nets few physical casualties. Second, some say that the terrorists have taken the battle to civilians. We should be outraged. Okay, we should be. Taking the battle to civilians is not a Muslim novelty. The US has done it from the times of struggle against the native tribes of the Americas. And we've done it deliberately in WWII and Vietnam. In the past, our isolation has made it hard for people to do it against us. (By the way, 9/11 wasn't mainly about inflicting civilian casualties. If Al-Qaida wanted maximum casualties, they would have aimed for other targets less symbolic and more dangerous.) Pacifists recognize that the struggle against violence indeed needs to be fought in every person: civilian and those with responsibility to protect the innocent. In Denmark and Norway, WWII resisters were civilians. Women and children put themselves at risk for a cause. The battle against violence needs to be waged in every human heart. Those who give in to hatred and violence on the homefront are as much a danger to themselves and those around them as a terrorist is. And given the levels of violence and cruelty in cities, schools, sport, the media, etc., we have a lot more grave threats to our security, even given that terrorists care little for schools, offices, or the military. I suppose my conclusion here is that all must struggle against violent urges, and that the random violence at home is nothing to be trifled with. Third, the rules haven't changed. Christ's commandments are not abrogated because Saddam, Hitler, Van Buren (Trail of Tears), or someone else is particularly heinous in their lack of regard for human life. Fourth, events such as the ascension of Hitler, the funding of Osama, or the terrorist siege at a Russian school do not happen in isolation. A person doesn't wake up one morning, find the toothpaste tube squeezed empty and decide to take some hostages or start a genocide. Hitler rose to power because of the injustices visited upon the German people at Versailles. Saddam was propped up because we didn't like Khomeini. Some Muslims dislike the US because our foreign policy has been non-sensical since the end of WWII. A pacifist would never cooperate with an unjust person. Non-cooperation might have a cost, but allying with such people inevitably comes with a price. Ends do not justify the means. Either the US is powerful enough to stand above all tin pot dictators and third world thugs or we're not. If we need the Saudis or Pakistan then we might not be as all-powerful as we think. And if so, we're in a lot deeper trouble than you think. High standards and principles come with their own cost. The advantage is that the personal discipline needed adds to one's own stature, one's moral wealth, if you will. The other plus is that pacifists name their own costs. By engaging in violence, the cost is determined in part by one's adversary, and in part by one's own fallen human nature. Additionally, one runs the risk of turning as evil as one's opponent. The Quakers, for one group, were willing to pay the price. They paid native tribes in Pennsylvania fair prices for land they wanted to settle. As a result, Quakers were never targeted for attack as people were in other colonies. Did it hurt them not to raid the Shawnee, Erie, or other tribes? Would Americans be willing to pay the price of fairness in international dealings now so people forty, sixty, or a hundred years down the line won't have to pay? I don't think we've learned how to do that. My assessment of the Catholic chatter around St Blog's is this: - Some people are too quick to set aside their faith (and make no mistake: this is what they do) to give in to hatred and anger, especially for violence not directly perpetrated upon them. - Some are too quick to set aside the rules. Not surprising: discipline is not easy. - Very few people seem willing to look at the big picture in the struggle against terrorism. If the fight is to be long, then we need to look ahead and cut off the violence in 2020, 2050, or beyond. My pessimistic sense is that Americans and Catholics will not recognize the real struggle ahead. We will, as a group, look for the satisfaction of short-term revenge (not to mention cheap fuel at the pump), and set aside the difficult tenets our religion and our nation's founding principles give us.